@velvet, firstly, it is a fair point about having statistically significant numbers in testing, if that is what you're referring to. And with the changes that we've implemented in the past, it is reasonable to say that we at time don't see the full ramifications until things are live. I am well aware of what is adequate and statistically significant testing. To get to there is a challenge, but the goal is of course to get there.
I think there is a bit of confusion to the point I am making. By saying that people wait excessively long before match start is not saying that we are removing strategy or giving people time to strategize. The issue here is that match lobby wait extends beyond strategy and tactic. The system nearly completely depends on the player to ready for example. It is thereby a manual system that really doesn't actively facilitate. It is dependent upon player mediation, and therefore isn't designed to optimize the efficiency of match readiness. We can debate this more in depth, but I do think that the limitation of the current system is apparent. The aim of the new system is in part to try to allow people to make strategic and tactical decisions and choices, but improve efficiency of match start. If through testing, we find that the system is not optimal, we will then need to improve upon it.
With the point about offering people no choice to form crew, this is actually incorrect. People will explicitly have the option to form crew. And the aim is to make that effective. If it isn't in testing, then we'll again need to find ways to improve it.
On teaching. You are correct. When veteran players teach new players, it is beautiful and it is something that we want to foster. The current Novice system I agree has flaws, but when people whose skill levels are disparate are paired together, the experience can be actually excruciating for everyone. This I am not conjecturing. This is based on what we have seen before Novice was even implemented. And this is based on studies in other games as well. Teaching does happen a lot, and we have a great community, but sadly it doesn't happen often enough, because it is often not aligned with the interests of the players involved who are at very different stages of the learning curve.
The point about choice is valid, but herein lies the paradox in this point. You are correct that often people do not want to teach, and it is more often than not that new players find themselves not on the ship of someone willing to teach, but on a side that a well organized team destroys repeatedly. This is of course anecdotal. But really what it comes down to is that, can we facilitate learning by experience sharing between players of different levels. This is your main concern here correct? I think we are conscious of this, and it is something we want, but at the same time do a better job of ensuring balance. Are we there yet? We shall test and find out.
Ok, with "team stacking," let me just make this point as clear as I can. We DO NOT have issues with team stacking, if that term means people who know each other want to form up and play together. It is not a derogatory term to me. The issue here is that, can we find reasonable opponents for this team to play with. In the current system, the answer is systematically no. The evidence is pretty clear here. And you are likely correct in assuming that a crew formed clan team can win against a match made experienced team, and I think that fair. I don't think that proves the merit of either system, as at worst, we can do as well as what we do now.
I think there is also a conception here that Match making is somehow anti clan, or that we are somehow anti clan. If somehow we gave off that impression, I definitely apologize. We are not anti clan. In fact, I would say that based on track record, we have been pretty far removed from that. We are not trying to do things to diminish clans. I would say that we have been really active in facilitating clans and the competitive scene. In fact, the community system that I have been promising about for the last 2-3 months is being worked on right now as we speak. As we have finally gone from concept and specifications to implementation. And we took more time with that to make sure that we took in feedback from you guys. With the new system in place, the aim is to actually have a place in game for clans to form and recruit, and for new players to sign up.
I think the point about featured match flexibility and accessibility is a valid concern, and it can potentially take away flexibility. And this is the exact kind of feedback we want. If in testing, you feel that this takes away the benefit of the current system that is vital. Then we should think of ways to remedy this. And things like this really helps, and this is the point I wanted to make.
Actually, with scramble, what I am telling you is that, statistically speaking, it definitely helped retention. This was not a matter of my opinion. It really did happen. I'm not making this up hahaha.
I think if I am correct, I don't see a lot of cases of games with match making systems also offering match list, and have them be in juxtaposition. Eric did more of the benchmark research, so he can speak better. But I definitely understand your point and concern here.
I think the more productive thought process is, if you like, you can list out briefly what you think are both the pros and cons of the current system. By doing this, the issues that we are tackling should be clearer, and we can then test systematically against the concerns of the new system to make sure we retain the pros of the current system.
For now, I would once again still encourage people to participate and try and test. Otherwise, whatever data and feedback we collect here would be biased (statistically speaking).
Lastly, I think we have proven that we are not without reason, and that a lot of the decisions we made turned out to be right. And I think the way we made good decisions was to listen to you guys and look at whatever data we can collect. We will continue to do the same.
Thanks! Howard
